Session 30

After the “experimental turn” (Overdevest et al. 2010) in the social sciences, a growing body of literature on inter- and transdisciplinary research methods with laboratory character evolved. Urban Transition Labs (Nevens et al. 2013), Urban Living Labs (Marvin et al. 2018) or Real-world Laboratories (Wanner et al. 2018) use interventions and experimental approaches as core research modes. Their aim is to produce transformative knowledge to initiate social change, trough co-design and co-production of knowledge between academia, civil society actors and local political or administrative authorities. The lab approaches have a lot in common with participatory and action research methods, especially due to their focus on normative change through collaborative production of knowledge. This Session wants to address the question how transdisciplinary research methods and in particular interventions and experiments can help to further develop participatory and action research methods? We welcome theoretical and empirical papers, which connect participatory and action research with transdisciplinary research methods, in particular lab approaches like Urban Transition Labs, Real-world Laboratories or Urban Living Labs.

ABSTRACTS

1.Transdisciplinary or Collaborative? Lab Approaches and their Influence on Participatory and Action Research Methods

Robert Barbarino  (Technical  University Dortmund, Germany)

Katrin Gliemann  (Technical University Dortmund, Germany)

After the “experimental turn” (Overdevest et al. 2010) in the social sciences, a growing body of literature on inter- and transdisciplinary research methods with laboratory character evolved. Urban Transition Labs (Nevens et al. 2013), Urban Living Labs (Marvin et al. 2018) or Real-world Laboratories (Wanner et al. 2018) use interventions and experimental approaches as core research modes. Their aim is to produce transformative knowledge to initiate social change, trough co-design and co-production of knowledge between academia, civil society actors and local political or administrative authorities. The lab approaches have a lot in common with participatory and action research methods, especially due to their focus on normative change through collaborative production of knowledge. This Session wants to address the question how transdisciplinary research methods and in particular interventions and experiments can help to further develop participatory and action research methods? We welcome theoretical and empirical papers, which connect participatory and action research with transdisciplinary research methods, in particular lab approaches like Urban Transition Labs, Real-world Laboratories or Urban Living Labs.

2.Participatory evaluation of Real-world Laboratories: Findings from a Literature Review

Teresa Kampfmann  (Leuphana University Lüneburg, Germany)

With the ongoing discussions about definition and methods of Real-world Laboratories (short: RwLs), the need to evaluate these is repeatedly pointed out (Rose et al. 2019). Even though evaluation seems crucial in terms of scaling-up and amplifying the tested sustainability solution, the actual implementation of an evaluative approach is considered to be difficult (Schaepke et al. 2017). This could be partly due to the complex and interconnected structure of a RwL as common definitions suggests (Schneidewind 2014). A RwL is a social context where experiments in the sense of interventions take place. Several times interventions are described as crucial components of experiments in a RwL (Schaepke et al. 2017, Canigila 2017). Following these explanations, a RwL consists of three different levels: Lab, Experiment and Intervention. When evaluating a RwL, the existence of the different levels is worth considering. Depending on the focus of the evaluation, the emphasis may be on (only) one particular level. Accordingly, an evaluation can be designed in a variety of ways. We give an overview how these different levels have been evaluated in practice so far. Therefore, we present the results of a (yet unpublished) literature review. We have analyzed and systemized studies, in which Interventions, Experiments or Labs in real-world settings have been evaluated empirically. One focus is directed to what extent participants of the specific Lab, Experiment or Intervention are involved in the evaluation process. This way, we show how evaluations differ in practice according to the different levels of Intervention, Experiment, and Lab. The identified types of evaluation studies might be helpful for evaluating (aspects of) a RwL.

3.Laboratories as co-production dispositive for housing and urban practice: lessons from Latin America and the Caribbean.

Hector Becerril  (National Council of Science and Technology, Mexico)

Anthony Boanada-Fuchs  (St.Gallen Institute of Management in Latin America, Colombia)

In the past years, lab approaches based on co-production processes of knowledge between state actors, civil society, and academia have gained relevance in urban research. They have also gained importance as method among non-academic actors for building alliances and collaboration and generating common urban and planning knowledge and guidance for action. However, there is little understanding and systematization of how lab approach has been deployed outside academia, i.e., outside research projects. Aiming to address this gap, the paper explores the experience of Housing Laboratories called LAVs of the Urban Housing Practitioners Hub, a cross-sectoral coalition of practitioners, academics, NGOs, multi-lateral institutions, private sector actors, and local and national governments, aiming to improve the quality of housing practice in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) (Seidel et al., 2020). The LAVs were regularly organized since 2017 as multi-scalar and multi-actor dispositive of coproduction of knowledge. In more than 50 LAVs, various housing-related issues have been discussed, including housing and finance, migration, urban policies, and informal settlements and their upgrading. Based on the success, the LAV concept was more recently expanded to other world regions by initiating a UTC series on discussing common challenges in slum upgrading and specific approaches in Africa and Asia. Based on this experience, the paper analyses the conditions and implication of co-production processes between state and non-state actors (Mitlin & Bartlett, 2018; Ostrom, 1996; Watson, 2014), as well as the conditions and implication for intertwining different practices including, science and policy (Jasonoff, 2004; Latour, 2012) exploring the linkages and lessons for participatory methods. While the LAVs can be conceptualized as a research-setting laboratory, the authors would be highly interested in discussing how they might differ (and how not) to laboratories as research devices.

4.Local collaborative design-projects as catalyst and research-instrument of urban transformations

Hendrik Weinerr  (Raumdialog, Germany)

Collaborative design-projects implement interventions and local processes as co-designs of space and community, without or with references to the local authorities. This practice, generated from an architecture and design-approach, opens up ways of direct collaborations and local developments. As a ‘research through design’ (Jonas 2007) respectively ‘project-based research’ (Finedli 2008) this practice as well has a big potential for a collaborative and trans-disciplinary research of spatial transformations. The approach of collaborative design-projects is developed as a spatial designing project work with children and youth and in cooperation with local institutions. The approach is based on the Scandinavian Participatory Design (PD) (Ehn, Nilsson, Topgaard 2014) and refers to Participatory Action Research (PAR) (Kindon, Pain, Kesby 2010). The input discusses the challenges and potentials to act and design with children and youth in urban space ‘on eye level’ with examples of real projects (Sitzskulptur Tenever, Bremen; RaumTeiler, Berlin). It asks for working methods and settings, for possibilities to use collaborative design-projects in urban development processes and as starting points of local co-productions. It questions the role of initiators, designers, institutions, and administrations. It names designerly, artistic and manual methods of operations, shows results and makes ways of anchoring research into the local – with local actors as co-researchers – a subject of discussion.